Sunday, 19 March 2017

More than sixty years had passed since the last major
conflict between Persia and Eastern Rome, but the Anastasian War (502 – 506)
was to become the first of many. From her major staging point (Nisibis) Persia
had seized a number of key fortresses which were eventually re-taken during the
long struggle.

504

A brief armistice was made to counter the Hunnic
invasion of Armenia. Two years later a negotiated peace treaty was signed and
Rome sought to correct the military shortcoming on the frontier by building a
major base at Dara to counter Nisibis.

526

The duration of the peace treaty ending the Anastasian
War was set for seven years, in reality it lasted for twenty. A question of
Persian royal succession and the defection of the Iberian King Gourgen broke the peace. At the opening of the Iberian
War, little fighting was done between Byzantine and Persian troops as allies
were recruited to serve both sides; Huns fought on both sides in the north and
Arabs in the south.

527

Justinian succeeds to the throne and to effectively defend the
eastern borders Western Armenia was reorganized as a military zone which
included First, Second and Inner Armenia. The former Armenian regiments now
became part of the Imperial military thereby eliminating the civil
administrative functions held by Greek and Armenian nakharars.

528

To counter the Persian threat in the north (Armenia)
and south (Mesopotamia), Justinian divided the magister militum of the East in
two a creating a separate magister militum of Armenia. The victory at Dara (530)
followed by a defeat at Callinicum (531) forced Justinian to re-open
negotiations.

532

The Persian King Khavad dies and is succeeded by his
son Khosrow I who concludes a treaty
with Justinian. Justinian returned to the reorganization of Western Armenia intent
on making it a province within the Empire. No longer sub-divided, Armenia now
became one province and the institution of new laws were clearly designed to
integrate Western Armenia into Byzantine authority.

537

The reduction of nakharar
authority and increased taxes stirred discontent in Western Armenia. Key
figures among the Armenian royal houses combined their forces to begin an
insurrection. They managed to sweep the Byzantines out of Western Armenia,
destroying a number of Imperial regiments. The revolt was crushed by the
arrival of a large Byzantine force capturing many Armenian nakharars to be
either executed or exiled.

570

In Persian Armenia, similar
changes were taking place; heavier taxes and economic and political exemptions
for the nakharars were greatly reduced. The Persian Marzban Souren
provoked the masses by erecting religious shrines. In response, the Armenian
chiefs sought the assistance of Byzantium to liberate Eastern Armenia if they
rose in revolt.

571

At the outbreak of the
rebellion, the Marzban Souren was slain sending other Persian officials and
soldiers to flee. Resistance continued for two years against Persian forces
without Byzantine aid forcing key Armenian to Constantinople to renew their plea.

572

With the Huns renewing their activity on
Persia’s eastern frontier, Byzantium declared war against Persia.

After seven years, the
Byzantine were less than successful forcing them to seek peace with Ormuzd
IV. The terms of the treaty did not satisfy Ormuzd IV, so hostilities were
renewed.

582

Byzantine fortunes turned
for the better with the new emperor Maurice. Invading Persia, the war
was brought to a successful conclusion and supporting the claim of Khosrov II
restored him to the throne in 591.

591

In return for Byzantine aid,
the new Persian King gave a major part of Armenia extending its eastern border
from Lake Van to Nissibin. As part of the agreement Armenian soldiers would be
relocated to other parts of their respective empires in an attempt to diffuse
any future friction.

602

Maurice is assassinated by
the usurper Phocas, which gave the Persians an opportunity to denounce
the treaty of 591 and reclaim lost territories. Persia successfully occupied
Syria and Egypt but Byzantine fortunes returned when Heraclius seized
the throne in 610.

622

Heraclius’ first attempt to
regain a foothold in Armenia was less than successful, but a second campaign
two years later swept the Persian army from the Armenian highlands to the
Tigris winning a decisive victory. The reverses in the field generated disorder
among the Persian elite prompting the assignation of Khosrov II. His son, Kavad
concluded a new treaty and with it a greater part of Armenia passed into the
Byzantine Empire in 627.

Thursday, 16 March 2017

Shapur II claims Mesopotamia and Armenia forcing
Arshak, King of Armenia to flee. Loyalties of the Armenian nobles are split
between accepting Persian dominance or remain with the West. King Arshak meets
with Constantius, but the emperor dies before the conclusion of any agreement.

363

Julian, now emperor,
launches a campaign against Persia but dies during the campaign leaving his
successor Jovianus to concede a humiliating treaty giving up gains made during
the campaign and the cessation of support to Armenia.

371

The Roman Empire now split in two spheres, the
Armenians renewed their appeal for assistance with eastern Rome. Negotiations
stumbled over a number of issues including religious ones prompting Rome to conclude
a treaty with Persia essentially leaving Armenia to her own devices.

Vassak Mamikonian continues the struggle against
Persia devastating the districts of Sophene and Akilisene. The Persians pin
Vassak in the province of Ararat and King Arshak makes an appeal to Shahpur for
a reconciliation to which the King of Persia accepts. During the royal welcome
and feast, King Arshak was seized and sent to the fortress of Oblivion (Anhoush
berd) were he met his end.

The son of the
slain king and exiled in Constantinople, Pap returned to Armenia escorted by an
Imperial legion. The Jovianus treaty, which had left Armenia to the mercy of
Persia, was now revoked by Valens.

384

Under Roman suzerainty the young king had to overcome
conflicts with unruly nobles and the recurring friction between Church and
state. To resolve the issue, Theodosius
the Great and Shahpur III concluded the partition of Armenia with the
larger portion becoming a vassal state under Persian suzerainty and the smaller
portion formed a Roman province.

385

Khosrov appointed King of Armenia by Shapur III
exceeds his authority during his six year period and is replaced by his brother
Vramshapouh. Vramshapouh won the confidence of Shapur III as well as of the
pro-Roman party of his country. With the accession of Yazdegert I, Vramshapouh’s
reign would confront new trials.

418

Abda, a fanatical Assyrian bishop, set fire to a
Mazdeian temple in Susa. Overnight, the tolerance shown toward Christians is irreparably
damaged.

422

The new Persian king, Bahram V is confronted by Rome
for the persecution of Christians in Armenia. His first expedition into Armenia
under Mihr-Nerseh meets with defeat and Bahram V is forced to suspend operations.
A peace treaty ensuring tolerance to both parties in each Armenia was signed.

428

Bahram V placed Artashir, the son of Vramshapouh, as the
King of Armenia. Artashir proved incapable of coping with the intractable
aristocracy and was summoned to Ctesiphon and later deprived of his title and
power. Armenia was now reduced in status to a Persian province ending the 376
rule of the Armenian-Arshakid dynasty.

The Marzbanate

Armenia was now governed by Marzbans. Nominated by the
Persian King, a Marzban was invested with supreme power, but he could not
interfere with the age-long privileges of the Armenian nakharars which included
the retaining an army to protect their domains. To an extent, the province of
Armenia enjoyed certain autonomy; maintaining its own courts, schools and
maintaining a military force. The question of religious freedom became a source
of friction during a number of periods as Christianity was seen to bring
Armenia closer to Byzantium. On three occasions this escalated to a situation
requiring excessive methods to control.

438

King Yazdegert II (438‑457) was set on a path to
revive the empire of Cyrus and to place all Asia under Persian influence. He
began with repudiating the Hundred Years' Treaty of 420 and invaded the Byzantine
territories of Mesopotamia destroying a number of cities, burning churches and
seizing captives.

441

Unable to counter the Persian threat, the Emperor
Theodosius II concluded a peace treaty which included the surrender of Persian
Christians who had taken refuge in the Byzantine domain.

442

Yazdegert II now campaigned against the Kushans. The
long struggle ended after dealing the Kushans a severe defeat at Marvroud, near
the River Murghab. Next, Yazdegert II
blocked the passages through the Caucasian Mountains to stop the incursions by
the Mazkouts or Black Huns. To do this, the great wall called the Jora Bahag or
Gate of Jor-Derbend was re-built.

448

Returning to internal issues, Yazdegert II viewed the
Christians of Armenia as a problem as their ties with Eastern Rome exerted an
influence over the northern territories including the mountain Kingdoms of Iberia
and Albania.

449

Against the advice of counselors, Yazdegert II imposed
heavy taxes and appointing Mazdeian mages to key judicial posts. This did not
hasten the result expected so an edict was made forcing Armenians to ‘give up’
Christianity. An assembly of bishops and nakharars rejected the edict forcing
Yazdegert II to call the chief dignitaries of Armenia to Ctesiphon. Threatened with
imprisonment the delegation returned to Armenia accompanied by 700 magi who
were given the task of converting the entire country in twelve months. The
experiment proved unworkable and in July the peasants of Douin rose in revolt
driving the Mages off.

Yazdegert II had rushed an army to Trans-Caucasia to
block any assistance from those parts. The Armenians gathered forces to defend key
locations and sent a delegation to Constantinople for aid. Not wanting to
antagonize the King of Persia, Constantinople refused aid as it was too
occupied with a major threat coming from the Huns.

450

A civil war ensued with pro-Persia followers from
central Armenia faced a pro-West faction lead by Vardan. The conflict turned
against Vardan who sent a last appeal to Yazdegert II pledging Armenian loyalty
if religious freedom could be observed. Returning from a less than successful
campaign against the Kushans, Yazdegert accepted the reconciliation from Vardan
and declared a general amnesty.

451

The reconciliation was received with mixed feeling by
the Nationalists and their suspicions proved correct as hostilities resumed in
the spring with Imperial troops under Mihr-Nerseh crossing the Arax River to
seize the Caucasus defiles blocking any assistance by the tribal allies of the
Armenians.

Now isolated, the Armenians faced their greatest
crisis as the Persian King had been assured of the absolute neutrality of the
Byzantine government. Despite the bleak outlook, Vardan and his colleagues assemble
all their forces for a final confrontation in the vicinity of Artaz.

On the plain of Avarair an outnumbered Armenian army met the Sassanid host. The result was a Pyrrhic
victory for the Sassanid as the Armenians remained defiant and continued the
war. Confronted by pressing issues elsewhere, Yazdegert II ordered the
Marzban Muskhan to cease hostilities and declare a general amnesty. Unconvinced
of its sincerity, the war continued with much guerilla activity with the Persians
suffering a number of setbacks. Another solution was needed.

452

To resolve the conflict a number of pro-Persian Armenian leaders responsible by starting the
conflict through their treacherous actions, they were summoned to Ctesiphon for
trial. Those found guilty were stripped of their offices and imprisoned.

During this period, the Kushans made another incursion
into Persia prompting Yazdegert II to ready a third expedition. This met with a
number of reverses including friction within the army and the King being
chastised by the Magi for the offenses committed in Armenia.

459

Peroz, the eldest son of Yazdegert II ascended the
throne in 459 and used persuasive means to bring the Armenians into the state
religion. Showered with gifts and promotions King Perez lured new followers
that many Armenians viewed the rise of a pro-Persian party as a serious threat.

481

King Vakhtank of Iberia (Georgia) revolted against
Persia which moved Armenian nakharars (nobles) to urge Vahan to join the Iberians
which he did. Hearing of the revolt, the Persian Marzban eluded capture but
lost possession of the treasury. In the four years following, the Armenians were
victorious in a number of engagements; Agori, Nersehapat, Erez and Shdev and guerilla
warfare continued in not only Armenia but also in Iberia.

484

King Peroz dies
during his final campaign against the Hephtalites. Succeeding to the throne of
his brother,

Valash resolved the Armenian question leading to the
Treaty of Nuvarsak. This set a compromise
between the court of Ctesiphon and the Armenian clergy and nobility. Vahan was
appointed Marzban (485 – 505) affording Armenia a period of peace and
prosperity. In contrast, Persia was occupied with pressing issues; internal
unrest and conflict against Byzantium.

Wednesday, 15 March 2017

Adding the
Early Byzantine to the collection, primarily as opponents for my Sassanid, I
began looking at other armies to collect and Armenia of the same period surfaced
to the top. I must confess I know very little about Armenia of this sub-list
other than it seemed its presence worked as a magnet to pull the major players
(Byzantine & Sassanid) and a number of minor ones (Iberia, Albania, Arabs
and Huns) into conflict.

Map: Atlas of Armenia (Wiki)

After several
weeks of scouring the Internet I decided to bring order to all the loose pieces
of information and construct a timeline. What I found is a treasure trove of
political events which sparked military episodes begging to be made into
historical scenarios.

The timeline
is long and therefore will be presented in two parts. A third part describing
some of the major battles might prove useful; however, this might change to a
series of historical battles such as I have done earlier for the Migration to
Kingdom project.

Sunday, 12 March 2017

During Belisarius’ last campaign, the Burgundian army invaded northern Italia. The
Burgundians have few cavalry and therefore place their strength on the
combination of tribesmen (4Wb) and their levies (Sp).

Game 1

The battlefield
was quite compact that only the Burgundian could deploy its forces adequately.
The Byzantine had to negotiate two narrow passages before reaching the
Burgundians so the cavalry were split between a mobile right wing and the
remainder would support the infantry effort to engage the enemy. The Hunnic
light horse would utilise their speed to reach the rear of the Burgundian line
and support the Byzantine attacks with an attack of their own.

The battle
developed as the Strategos had planned and even the psiloi were able to contain
a column of Burgundian tribesmen.

The Byzantine
left were now successful in breaking the levies that the Strategos gave the signal
for the cavalry of the right to attack.

The
Burgundian tribesmen were able to beat back the cavalry and in an act of
desperation to contain a breakthrough on the right, the Burgundian chieftain
launched his bodyguard at the skutatoi. Despite a valiant effort the warlord
was mortally wounded and carried back to camp. Bereft of their leader, the
Burgundians fled the field. Score 4g – 1
Early Byzantine.

Game 2

The
Burgundian was forced to deploy in deep columns because of the narrow frontage available.
Their hope was to expand their formation as quickly as possible with tribesmen
flanking both sides of the shield wall and the cavalry in reserve.

The Byzantine
moved slowly forward so as to keep an even frontage. The slow approach did
offer the Burgundians time to improve their formation.

The
Burgundian right wing struck first leaving the tribesmen on the left to stare
down the approach of the Byzantine cavalry.

The Byzantine
left now degenerated into a number of individual combats and now it was time
for the cavalry to attack.

At this point
the initiative swung in favour of the Burgundian as they redoubled their effort
and broke the Byzantine cavalry attack. Score
6 – 1 Burgundian.

Game 3

The
battlefield for the final game afforded both sides ample room to deploy, however,
the Burgundian positioned its troops close to camp knowing well the Byzantine
frequent use of flanking attacks.

Supporting
both flanks of the Byzantine infantry the cavalry of the left wing struck the
Burgundian line first. Not far behind were the skutatoi and in a few minutes
they would add their weight to the conflict.

This brought
the score even at 2 -2.

In the next
two turns the situation moved to a critical stage for both sides as the score
reached 3 – 3.

On the
Byzantine left both sides feeling the exhaustion fell back to catch their wind.
The situation turned against the Burgundian as half the cavalry force was
overpowered by the greater number of Byzantine cavalry. Score 4 -3 Early Byzantine.

Wednesday, 8 March 2017

There are a
few subtle differences between the Lombard and Italian Ostrogoth for one the
foot troops are replaced by spear, archers remain (3Bw) but are less in number
and the introduction of psiloi which are useful in difficult terrain. This
should be an interesting matchup.

Game 1

The
battlefield had a minimal amount of terrain features, but their location
influenced the battle plans of both sides. The Byzantine were to splitting
their force into two wings; one mobile and the other of infantry.

The
Ostrogoth anticipating this deployed a narrow front of two lines, the first
comprised all the Italian infantry and the second held all the mounted force.

The infantry
battle took place first and here the Byzantine placed most of their effort with
the skutatoi and psiloi accounting for a 3 – 0 score.

This
energised the Ostrogoth nobles into action and they struck the Byzantine
cavalry with equal number of units.

The effort
fell short of the mark as two more units of Ostrogoth cavalry succumb to the
Byzantine lance.

Score 5 – 0 Early Byzantine.

Game 2

The second
engagement found the Ostrogoth deployed in front of two woods. Facing the
barbarians the Byzantine formed the infantry on the right and all the mounted
on the left.

The
Ostrogoth moved first and send their skirmishers to quickly occupy the hill
flanking the Byzantine left. At that same moment, the Hunnic light horse
needled their way between the skirmishers and the Ostrogoth battle line to
position themselves in front of their camp.

Closing the
gap between battle lines the Byzantine was able to form one contiguous front.

The
Ostrogoth cavalry sent a number of Byzantine cavalry back on their heels but
the effort caused no casualties.

Within two
bounds the Byzantine put their reserves into good use destroying two units and
third, their general, killed outright by the Strategos. Score 4+g – 2 Early Byzantine.

Game 3

Defending
again the Ostrogoth made minor changes to the terrain features and added a
river. From the deployment, the Byzantine were now confined to a narrow defile
with hill and wood on either side. The Ostrogoth deployed in one line with
the infantry formed on the left and all the mounted deployed in centre with all
the skirmishers and a unit of archers extending the right.

Half of the
Ostrogoth cavalry were given the task of confining the Byzantine cavalry to the
defile while the infantry were ordered to seize the hill to support the
eventual cavalry assault. Coordinating two separate attacks generally falls
flat as the unexpected usually happens; the Byzantines attacked.

Any plans
that either side had were quickly dispensed with as the battle turned into a
tavern brawl.

The Byzantine
forces beat all opposition in the defile and included the timely arrival of
skutatoi beating Ostrogoth knights on a score of even bringing the score 3 –
1 for the Byzantine.

In that brief
moment of euphoria, the Ostrogoth counter-attacked sweeping the hill of all
opposition and in the defile Ostrogoth cavalry cut down an isolated skutatoi
to change the tide of battle. Score 4 –
3 Italian Ostrogoth.

Saturday, 4 March 2017

This was a
nice pairing taking place on a parched area in northern Italia. The Early
Lombard have a strong cavalry force with an option to increase their number,
but for the following matches the warband option was used; including the archers
(3Bw) the Lombard would make a worrisome opponent for the Early Byzantine.

Game 1

The Byzantine
deployment made use of the fields to cover their flanks; unfortunately the wood
proved an inconvenience and so the skutatoi and psiloi were formed up on the
slopes of the difficult hill giving the battle lines a half moon shape.

The Lombard
formed up in an extended line with all their cavalry on the left wing and all
the infantry on the right wing.

The Lombard
cavalry remained in position giving the infantry the opportunity to seize the
wood. From that position they could cover the planned cavalry attack.

The Byzantine
cavalry column on the left found them embroiled in a fight with Lombard
warriors and archers. This proved unfortunate as the Lombard got the better of
the exchange. This unsettled the Byzantine Strategos as when the Lombard
cavalry struck the Byzantine line collapsed. Score 5 – 3 Early Lombard.

Game 2

This time the
fields were exchanged for a small hamlet which served as a focal point for the
infantry of both sides.

Leaving the Herul
as a reserve, the entire Byzantine line struck in unison. The effort became
effective as the Byzantine sent a number of Lombard recoiling back. On the
right, the Lombard warriors were inconvenienced by the hamlet that their deep
columns proved ineffectual.

Capitalising
on the moment (poor pip score for the Lombard) the Byzantine put an end to key
units that the Lombard called a general retreat giving the Byzantine a clear
victory. Score 4- 1 Early Byzantine.

Game 3

This time the
Byzantine used the hamlet to anchor her right wing and the left comprised of
all the mounted units. Opposite, the Lombard took advantage of the wood and
hill to cover their flanks; deployed further back were the Lombard warriors on
the left and nobles on the right.

The Lombard
moved forward with her left leading in echelon at which the Byzantine responded
with a right wheel on the entire battle line. Taking advantage of the slow move
forward, the Hunnic light horse made a quick dash toward the Lombard camp.

The attempt
on the camp forced the Lombard to detach cavalry to deal with the threat. The
rest of the Lombard line was now adjusting their lines to conform to the approaching
Byzantine cavalry and infantry.

The lines
meet.

The battle
settles into a slugging match with the Byzantine cavalry overlapping the
Lombard in several locations. The skutatoi have managed to best the Lombard warriors
and together with the losses among the mounted nobles and their camp sacked,
the Lombard break and retreat from the field. Score 4 + camp – 2 early Byzantine.